In the entire history of the United States, we've had only one President who served longer than 8 years. And all of them have been up for reelection every 4. So, to buy into the premise of the thread, you have to believe that the United States has never accomplished anything. It's just a plainly silly argument. And a professional (neutral, nonpartisan) bureaucracy is a deliberate part of the system, that stabilizing force you're so keen on. It protects all of us from the worst excesses of political leaders.
Why do national leaders only get a few years?
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
No, you don't.
North Korea has accomplished things. Iran has accomplished things. Saudi Arabia has accomplished things.
You've bought in to a logical fallacy.
You'll have to find something I said to argue against, not something you wish I'd said.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Yeah, you do.
Such as?
Not relevant.
Specifically?
You introduced a greater standard for qualification than the one I presented.
My assertion is that term limits are a hindrance to progress, not that they make advancement impossible.
It hasn't seemed to slow us down. I don't know how you're measuring this, but there's also a risk of stagnation if the same people run things unchallenged forever.
The same people can't run things forever. People die. Bureaucracies don't.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Bureaucracies are rule by committee. Committees have a hard time deciding things.
One of the main reasons we lost the Vietnam war was that we had a committee running the military, and not a single general.
How much better could a country be ruled if, like a proper military, it had one person running things, and people under him to lighten the burden?
And if Truman had not fired MacArthur we would have been involved in an all out war with China.
And then you have North Korea, but then again, they have accomplished things.
Letme guess...you wanna give Trump about twenty unimpeded years (or so) to work on his political chops? :chuckle:
If I had the authority (Arty, don't even start, we know you would hate it if I had any authority at all) to do so, I would set up a lottery to determine who would rule.
Cast lots to choose one of the 50 (or 51 if we include Puerto Rico) states. Then, cast lots for which county. Then for which township, neighborhood, street, block, house or residential building, (then which apartment, if necessary,) family, and then cast lots for the males in the family.
Whoever is chosen will rule, or if the child is incapable of ruling due to maturity, the head of the military will rule until the child is mature enough, at which point, the child will begin to rule. Whoever is chosen would rule until the day he dies.
Hard to think of a more irrational way to chose government officials.
How is it irrational?
It's literally the most fair way to choose a leader.
I guess I forgot to mention, that once a king is chosen, a hereditary monarchy would be established, where the oldest son would rule after the king dies, and so on. If the king does not have any sons at the time of his death, then his wife, the queen, or if none, his oldest daughter, or if none, his chief military officer, will oversee the next lottery.
Correction to what I said above, as far as order of location of the lottery...
First, lottery of states, then a county, then a municipality, then a neighborhood, then a block, then a family, then within that family a man of any age, whom the Overseer crowns King.
Do you think I'm a sexist for wanting a man to lead the country, as men usually have better leadership skills?
If you're going to accuse me of something, don't do it offhandedly. Don't be a coward, Jonah.
I find it interesting that Jonah likes to mock Christians for their ideas, yet never has the urge to defend his position.
[MENTION=16750]Jonahdog[/MENTION] why is that?
I mean, this IS a forum for discussion...
Ok,you are simply ignorant. Better?
Your ignorance has nothing to do with your religion.